Providing Medical Assistance in Dying within a Home Palliative Care Program in Toronto, Canada: An Observational Study of the First Year of Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada in June 2016. There are no documented experiences of MAiD provision within a home palliative care program. The majority of palliative care physicians in Canada object to MAiD. As one of the largest home-based palliative care providers in Canada, the Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care (TLCPC) developed processes to implement MAiD provision within a home palliative care team with diverse attitudes toward MAiD. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility of providing MAiD within a home palliative care setting and describe the population that received MAiD in the first year of legalization. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review identified patients who received or were assessed for MAiD and had a known outcome between June 17, 2016 and June 30, 2017. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Patients receiving home-based palliative care. MEASUREMENTS: Data extracted included age, gender, primary diagnosis, length of time receiving home-based palliative care, and final clinical outcome. RESULTS: Of the 45 patients who were assessed for MAiD, 27 (60%) received MAiD and 18 (40%) did not. The mean age was 74 (range 20-95), 24 (53%) were male, and 33 (73%) had cancer as a primary diagnosis. These 27 patients represent 1.2% of our total patient population during this time period. CONCLUSIONS: MAiD was accessed by 1.2% of the patients within a home palliative care center in the first year of legalization. Patient demographics were consistent with those documented elsewhere. The TLCPC process accommodates the diverse viewpoints of clinicians and emphasizes continuity of palliative care provision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".